Andrew Bartles-Smith manages the ICRC’s Global Affairs Unit in Asia. He has many years of experience engaging with religious circles and non-state armed groups in the region, and has pioneered ICRC efforts to promote research and debate on IHL and religious teachings. He currently leads ICRC projects on Buddhism and IHL, and Hinduism and IHL, and recently established the ICRC’s Religion and Humanitarian Principles website with Daniel Ratheiser and other colleagues.
關鍵詞
International humanitarian law; IHL; Buddhism; war; karma; armed conflict; just war; jus in bello; jus ad bellum; intention; compliance; military ethics; psychology
摘要
This article examines Buddhist teachings relevant to the regulation of war and compares them with international humanitarian law (IHL) and the just war tradition by which it has been informed. It argues that Buddhist ethics broadly align with IHL rules to minimise harm inflicted during war, and that Buddhism’s psychological resources can help support IHL to improve compliance with common humanitarian norms. Indeed, Buddhist mindfulness techniques can support even non-Buddhist combatants by enhancing their psychological resilience and capacity to fight with skill and restraint. While IHL is a legal regime that legitimises violence under certain conditions, and lays down clear universally ratified rules, Buddhism is primarily an ethical and psychological system that addresses the motivations and inner roots of behaviour and can be understood and interpreted in different ways. In this respect, Buddhism overlaps with the field of military ethics, and can contribute much to enhance military training. However, while the centrality of non-harming (ahiṃsā) to Buddhism dictates that extraordinary efforts should be made to prevent war or otherwise minimise the harm inflicted – thereby checking interpretations of IHL that are overly permissive – Buddhism’s consequent reluctance to legitimise and thereby institutionalise war, and the ambiguity of its teachings in this regard, have generally precluded it from developing clear just war guidelines for belligerents to follow, and Buddhist resources to improve the conduct of hostilities have remained largely untapped. Mainstream traditions of Buddhist ethics must also be distinguished from more esoteric and localised beliefs and practices, and from the lived Buddhisms with which most lay Buddhists are more familiar, which do not necessarily embody the same degree of restraint. Belligerents might therefore have different conceptions or expectations of Buddhism depending on their culture and particular circumstances, or be unclear about what it says on the conduct of war.
目次
Abstract 8 Introduction 9 Content and structure 12 Part 1: IHL, religion and just war IHL and its limits 13 Religion and just war 14 Righteous war in ancient India 16 Part 2: Buddhist ethics in relation to war The emergence of Buddhism in part as a response to war 17 The psychological core of Buddhist ethics 18 Buddhist non-violence and the reality of war 20 Monastic versus lay ethics 21 Part 3: Preventing violence before and after war breaks out Buddhist statecraft and the prevention of war 22 The example of Ashoka 24 Greater accommodation for war in some Buddhist schools 25 Lineaments of just war in Buddhism 26 Part 4: Minimising violence during war according to Buddhism and IHL Karma and intention during war 27 Applying Buddhism and IHL to the conduct of war 29 Buddhist and IHL principles 31 Buddhism and military ethics 33 Mindfulness and military training 34 Clerical support to belligerents 36 Part 5: Failures to apply Buddhist and IHL norms in practice Historical misrepresentation of Buddhism to enable unrestrained violence 37 Contemporary failures to apply IHL and Buddhist ethics 39 Conclusion 41 Note 42 Abbreviations 42 Acknowledgements 43 References 43
